Unidimensional versus Multidimensional Poverty: A Case Study of Haryana

Abstract

Poverty does not encompass a single deprivation but involves a system of multiple interconnected deprivations. The present study attempted to investigate if the unidimensional measure of poverty based on the consumption expenditure approach can capture the actual state of poverty in Haryana. The study was based on the sixty-eighth round of the National Sample Survey on consumer expenditure. A total of eight indicators of poverty were chosen, namely; consumption expenditure, occupational security, educational level of head of household, educational level of the individual, lighting, cooking fuel, dwelling unit, and land ownership. These indicators were clubbed into three broad dimensions, namely, material well-being, education, and standard of living. The results revealed that consumption expenditure as a proxy to judge an individual's welfare in Haryana was unreliable as it under-represents deprivations across other indicators and had a low degree of association with them. A multidimensional measure of poverty was thus more suitable to capture the actual state of poverty. Further, it was found that education contributed the highest to Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI), followed by material well-being and standard of living. Among individual indicators, the most significant contributors to MPI in Haryana were the educational level of household-head as well as other members, cooking fuel, occupational security, and consumption expenditure.